By: Seth Manapio

Neil Draper wrote: “They are not just running simulations. Perhaps you are confusing AGW itself with the projected effects of AGW.”

———-

In a slightly more reasoned way, allow me to riposte.

First, I never claimed that anyone was “just” running simulations. I brought up simulations in the context of comparison to a placebo controlled, double blind study: that is, we cannot run a controlled experiment of any kind with the climate, so we do not equivalent data between the two hypotheses. We can run simulation, but simulation is a weaker methodology. So in terms of repeatable, testable, confirmed results, vaccination very good, AGW very, very bad.

Maher is denying the conclusions of a science that can be verified by direct experiment while mocking those who deny the conclusions of a science that cannot. He is clearly delusional, whereas AGW deniers may merely be ignorant.

I am aware of the other lines of evidence. I do not “deny” AGW as a hypothesis, even as a strongly supported one. However, as useful as historical data is at providing correlation, it is weaker in providing solid evidence of causation. The correlations are strong enough to warrant action, and the prevailing hypothesis is the best that I am aware of. However, it is certain that these correlations paint an incomplete picture, and therefore it is within the bounds of reason that something important could be being missed. To maintain that something important is being missed would be logically fallacious, but not insane.

Maher, on the other hand, is point blank pretending that reality is completely other than it is. Even as he is being forced to admit that he was factually wrong on point after point, he continues to cling to the belief that he is a rational, science minded person. This is actually nuttier than someone who just thinks that the earth is to big for us to affect it. Again, ignorance vs. delusion.

Finally, if you believe that a hypothesis can be separated from it’s predicted results, you are clearly doing this “science” thing incorrectly. If I have a theory of AGW, and the theory predicts that certain things will happen, but those things do not happen, my theory has been falsified. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory that maintains not that human beings are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and not that increased CO2 might lead to higher temperatures at some point in the future, but that human activities will have a specific impact on global climate in a specific timeframe, leading to specific results. The various climate models (which is what a theory of AGW is by the way, a model of climate behavior) stand or fall based on how well they predict the future.

None of which means that we should not, for example, have a cap-and-trade system of carbon credits. AGW is a creditable, strongly supported scientific hypothesis, and the consequences of failing to act could be pretty freaking dire. Planning for climate change (in case we’re right about the trend but wrong about the cause) and specific prevention activities (because we’re probably right) are definitely indicated.

But we could be wrong about AGW without radically changing what we think a planet is or how we understand the role of greenhouse gasses. If we are wrong about vaccines, our entire understanding of biology itself is just basically wrong.

Vaccine denial is the greater madness, and Maher the greater madman.